Quantitative weight of evidence method for combining predictions of quantitative structure-activity relationship models

References

• European Commission, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, Off. J. Eur. Union. L396 (2006), pp. 1–849.
   Google Scholar
• W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, Methuen, London, 1959.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and European Council, Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, Off. J. Eur. Union. L276 (2010), pp. 33–79.
   Google Scholar
• C.L. Wilkins and M. Randic, A graph theoretical approach to structure-property and structure-activity correlations, Theor. Chimica Acta 58 (1980), pp. 45–68. doi:10.1007/BF00635723.
   Google Scholar
• G.M. Maggiora and V. Shanmugasundaram, Molecular similarity measures, in Chemoinformatics. Concepts, Methods, and Tools for Drug Discovery, J. Bajorath, ed., Human Press Inc, Totowa, 2004, pp. 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• A.Z. Dudek, T. Arodz, and J. Gálvez, Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): A review, Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 9 (2006), pp. 213–228. doi:10.2174/138620706776055539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Devillers and E. Mombelli, Evaluation of the OECD QSAR application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 1. Aromatic amines, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 21 (2010), pp. 753–769. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2010.528959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, Report from the expert group on (quantitative) structure-activity relationships (Q)SAR on the principles for the validation of (Q)SARs, Environment, Health and Safety Publications, OECD, Series on Testing and assessment, No. 49, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• W. Dekant and J. Bridges, Assessment of reproductive and developmental effects of DINP, DnHP and DCHP using quantitative weight of evidence, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 81 (2016), pp. 397–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.M. Ellison, J.C. Madden, P. Judson, and M.T.D. Cronin, Using in silico tools in a weight of evidence approach to aid toxicological assessment, Mol. Inform. 29 (2010), pp. 97–110. doi:10.1002/minf.200900006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Eriksson, J. Jaworska, A.P. Worth, M.T.D. Cronin, R.M. McDowell, and P. Gramatica, Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs, Environ. Health Perpect. 111 (2003), pp. 1361–1375. doi:10.1289/ehp.5758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICH, ICH, ICH-M7 (R1) Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk, 2017; available at http://www.ich.org.
   Google Scholar
• A. Cassano, G. Raitano, E. Mombelli, A. Fernandez, J. Cester, A. Roncaglioni, and E. Benfenati, Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity: A retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation, J. Environ. Sci. Health C. Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Rev. 32 (2014), pp. 273–298. doi:10.1080/10590501.2014.938955.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Benigni and A. Guiliani, Computer-assisted analysis of interlaboratory Ames test variability, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 25 (1988), pp. 135–148. doi:10.1080/15287398809531194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Kamber, S. Flückiger-Isler, G. Engelhardt, R. Jaeckh, and E. Zeiger, Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity, Mutagenesis 24 (2009), pp. 359–366. doi:10.1093/mutage/gep017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W.W. Piegorsch and E. Zeiger, Measuring intra-assay agreement for the Ames Salmonella assay, in statistical methods in toxicology, in Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics, L. Hothorn, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991, pp. 35–41.
   Google Scholar
• I. Sushko, S. Novotarskyi, R. Körner, A.K. Pandey, A. Cherkasov, J. Li, P. Gramatica, K. Hansen, T. Schroeter, K.-R. Müller, L. Xi, H. Liu, X. Yao, T. Öberg, F. Hormozdiari, P. Dao, C. Sahinalp, R. Todeschini, P. Polishchuk, A. Artemenko, V. Kuz’min, T.M. Martin, D.M. Young, D. Fourches, E. Muratov, A. Tropsha, I. Baskin, D. Horvath, G. Marcou, C. Muller, A. Varnek, V.V. Prokopenko, and I.V. Tetko, Applicability domains for classification problems: Benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set,J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), pp. 2094–2111. doi:10.1021/ci100253r.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Watanabe, K. Sakamoto, and T. Sasaki, Collaborative study of interlaboratory variability in Salmonella typhimurium TA102 and TA2638 and Escherichia coli WP2/pKM101 and WP2 uvrA/pKM101, Mutagenesis 10 (1995), pp. 235–241. doi:10.1093/mutage/10.3.235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Buist, T. Aldenberg, M. Batke, S. Escher, R.K. Entink, R. Kühne, H. Marquart, E. Pauné, E. Rorije, G. Schüürmann, and D. Kroese, The OSIRIS weight of evidence approach: ITS mutagenicity and ITS carcinogenicity, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 67 (2013), pp. 170–181. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.01.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Pet-Edwards, Y.Y. Haimes, V. Chankong, H.S. Rosenkranz, and F.K. Ennever, Battery Selection in Risk Assessment and Decision Making Using Test Results. The Carcinogenicity Prediction and Battery Selection Approach, Plenum Press, New York, 1989.
   Google Scholar
• J.A. Cooper, R. Saracci, and P. Cole, Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests, Br. J. Cancer 39 (1979), pp. 87–89. doi:10.1038/bjc.1979.10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B.W. Matthews, Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 405 (1975), pp. 442–451. doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Baldi, S. Brunak, Y. Chauvin, C.A.F. Andersen, and H. Nielsen, Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: An overview, Bioinf. Rev. 16 (2000), pp. 412–424. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/16.5.412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Cohen, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20 (1960), pp. 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Landis and G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics 33 (1977), pp. 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA Scientific Committee, A. Hardy, D. Benford, T. Halldorson, M.J. Jeger, H.K. Knutsen, S. More, H. Naegeli, H. Noteborn, C. Ockleford, A. Ricci, G. Rychen, J.R. Schlatter, V. Silano, R. Solecki, D. Turck, E. Benfenati, Q.M. Chaudhry, P. Craig, G. Frampton, M. Greiner, A. Hart, C. Hogstrand, C. Lambre, R. Luttik, D. Makowski, A. Siani, H. Wahlstroem, J. Aguilera, J.-L. Dorne, A.F. Dumont, M. Hempen, S.V. Martinez, L. Martino, C. Smeraldi, A. Terron, N. Georgiadis, and M. Younes, Scientific opinion on the guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments, EFSA J. 15 (2017), pp. 4971–5040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W. Dekant and J. Bridges, A quantitative weight of evidence methodology for the assessment of reproductive and developmental toxicity and its application for classification and labeling of chemicals, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 82 (2016), pp. 173–185. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.09.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency, Practical Guide: How to Use Alternatives to Animal Testing to Fulfil Your Information Requirements for REACH Registration, European Chemical Agency, Helsinki, Finland, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• E.J. Matthews, N.L. Kruhlak, R.D. Benz, J.F. Contrera, C.A. Marchant, and C. Yang, Combined use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows software to achieve high-performance, high-confidence, mode of action-based predictions of chemical carcinogenesis in rodents, Toxicol. Mech. Meth. 18 (2008), pp. 189–206. doi:10.1080/15376510701857379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.C. White, R.A. Mueller, R.H. Gallavan, S. Aaron, and A.G.E. Wilson, A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure, Mutat. Res. 539 (2003), pp. 77–89. doi:10.1016/S1383-5718(03)00135-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Rorije, T. Aldenberg, H. Buist, D. Kroese, and G. Schüürmann, The OSIRIS weight of evidence approach: ITS for skin sensitisation, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 67 (2013), pp. 146–156. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.06.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I.J. Good, Probability and the Weighing of Evidence, Charles Griffin & Company Limited, London, 1950.
   Google Scholar
• H. Jeffreys, Theory of Probability. Appendix B, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1961.
   Google Scholar
• R.E. Kass and A.E. Raftery, Bayes factors, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90 (1995), pp. 773–795. doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Brusick, Screening Chemicals for Genotoxic Properties in Principles of Genotoxic Toxicology, Springer, Boston, MA, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• J. Kittler, M. Hatef, R.P.W. Duin, and J. Matas, On combining classifiers, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 20 (1998), pp. 226–239. doi:10.1109/34.667881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I.A. Gardner, H. Stryhn, P. Lind, and M.T. Collins, Conditional dependence between tests affects the diagnosis and surveillance of animal diseases, Prev. Vet. Med. 45 (2000), pp. 107–122. doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00119-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.P. Georgiadis, W.O. Johnson, I.A. Gardner, and R. Singh, Correlation-adjusted estimation of sensivity and specificity of two diagnostic tests, Appl. Stat. 52 (2003), pp. 63–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazar toxicity predictions 1.4.2. In Silico Toxicology Gmbh, Basel, Switzerland, 2019; software available at https://lazar.in-silico.ch/predict.
   Google Scholar
• A. Maunz, M. Gütlein, M. Rautenberg, D. Vorgrimmler, and D. Gebele, Lazar: A modular predictive toxicology framework, Front. Pharmacol. 4 (2013), pp. 1–10. doi:10.3389/fphar.2013.00038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VEGA in Silico Platform, 1.1.5 (CAESAR), Istituto Di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy, 2019; software available at https://www.vegahub.eu/.
   Google Scholar
• N.G. Bakhtyari, G. Raitano, E. Benfenati, T. Martin, and D. Young, Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part C 31 (2013), pp. 45–66. doi:10.1080/10590501.2013.763576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Ferrari and G. Gini, An open source multistep model to predict mutagenicity from statistical analysis and relevant structural alerts, Chem. Cent. J. 4 (Suppl 1) (2010), pp. 1–6. doi:10.1186/1752-153X-4-S1-S2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), 4.2.1, Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC; software available at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test.
   Google Scholar
• Online Chemical Modeling Enviroment (OCHEM) 1, 2013; software available at http://www.ochem.eu.
   Google Scholar
• I. Sushko, S. Novotarskyi, R. Körner, A.K. Pandey, M. Rupp, W. Teetz, S. Brandmaier, A. Abdelaziz, V.V. Prokopenko, V.Y. Tanchuk, R. Todeschini, A. Varnek, G. Marcou, P. Ertl, V. Potemkin, M. Grishina, J. Gasteiger, C. Schwab, I.I. Baskin, V.A. Palyulin, E.V. Radchenko, W.J. Welsh, V. Kholodovych, D. Chekmarev, A. Cherkasov, J. Aires-de-Sousa, Q.-Y. Zhang, A. Bender, F. Nigsch, L. Patiny, A. Williams, W. Tkachenko, and I.V. Tetko, Online chemical modeling environment (OCHEM): Web platform for data storage, model development and publishing of chemical information, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 25 (2011), pp. 533–554. doi:10.1007/s10822-011-9440-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission, Joint Research Center, Carcinogenicity Genotoxicity Experience (CGX) dataset, 2018; database available at https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/jrc-eurl-ecvam-genotoxicity-carcinogenicity-Ames/resource/4e9f9f21-2b99-451e-93b5-C2324d59c4e2.
   Google Scholar